Short introduction to the topic by Mazin:
All observers know that there has been significant changes in the political, cultural and economic landscape that are forcing a reexamination of assumptions about peaceful outcomes. For example, there are now 500,000 Israeli Jewish settlers in the areas Israel occupied in 1967. Those areas represent about 20% of historic Palestine and these are the same areas envisioned to be the future Palestinian state. There is thus a revival of the consideration of a one state outcome (whether a binational state, a confederation, or a secular democratic state for all its people). The forum is interested in a respectful discussion of the merits of these outcomes (some may call solutions but others disagree with the terminology which implies that there visions are mere solutions to manufactured problems). We urge you to focus discussion on just and peaceful outcomes and we will remove postings which suggest perpetual conflicts as inevitable or that denigrade religions or ethnicities. In your comments please focus on the issues (which are political) and not the persons and try to understand different perspectives. You may start by referring to these questions or as you like, please be aware to group guidelines and help us maintain productive and dignified discussion.
Why do you think people can or can't exist in a unitary state of all people regardless of their religion? What do you think is the biggest obstacle to getting people to recognize the inherent dignity and equality of all other people?
Is finding this crazy material your hobby or something?
Also, it seems like this discussion is getting more interesting the further we stray farther from the topic!
Anyway,I do agree with Chen that 'politics' is supposed to be value-neutral.
It was in ancient Greek. Just usually isn't nowaday, but that just reminds me of a high school teacher I had who used to say, often, "The way it is, and the way it ought to be...".
We're working on the way it ought to be. Which must be based on a stable, and dynamically growing, platform of commons/truths and best-current practices.
Have you given any thought to the filtering process, or criteria for the various levels as well as unique entities? Or to change as it occurs?
You already know that I agree with you about the need to improve group cohesion and effectiveness by whole orders of magnitude, and not just small increments.
So keep up the good work.
You know, anything you want edited, just let me know.
As Roni mentioned on October 5 (now that I see that), nobody has really laid out what would b the schemes for any kind of solution.
In my exchanges with Chen I did lay out some of the necessary elements for a Federation to occur.
Would you like for me to expand on that?
And post it where?
After reviewing this whole thread, this is how I'd summarize it.
On the issue of a one-state vs. two-state outcome;
1. It appears to be the more common sentiment that for practical reasons,
a two-state structure will probably have to precede a one-state resolution.
2. The two state boundary should be about where the 1967 lines settled.
3. No discussion was had of Jerusalem at all.
4. Those who support a one-state resolution believe there must be a Constitution supporting it, and that it should resemble the US Constitution or UN Declaration of Human Rights in supporting individual freedoms.
5. Rights inhere in the individual, not in groups.
6. The question of how each side in a one-state resolution would preserve its unique character, must be looked into thoroughly. to generate a formula that would help coexistence to grow without diminishing anyone's identity.
7. We need curriculum and organizational reform to get to any adequate resolution.
8. The issue of how a two-state solution would operate - details like mobility between them, and minority rights in Palestine, were not really discussed.
9. Rsources were discussed, but really only to say generally that they should be divided fairly under any resolution.